Western culture is undergoing a fundamental
ideological transformation. Historically based on Judeo-Christian ideology,
scientific methodology, and critical reasoning, it is now migrating toward a
culture based on far less reliable guides. Social scientists refer to this trend
as "postmodernism."

Modern western societies have advanced technologically far
beyond all historical precedents. Advances in medicine, engineering, and
agriculture have produced higher standards of living for more individuals than
ever before. Scientific methodology has played a critical role in this success,
and is thus highly esteemed in western cultures. This esteem is so high that
scientific opinions are often more highly regarded than
"Judeo-Christian" ones, even among people of faith. And why not?
Science has put a man on the moon, split the atom, given us the telephone,
television, computer, genetic engineering, and promises to eventually cure all
of our medical ills ó even to reverse the aging process. Who needs God?
Judeo-Christian ideology has given us irrational, intolerant radicals who lead
violent crusades, teach that the Earth is flat, deny the existence of dinosaurs,
and try to make us feel guilty about everything. Despite its apparent failures,
conservative historians correctly argue that the Judeo-Christian ethic has
played an essential role in the success of Western
culture.1 Nevertheless, the preference for science
over faith is so much a part of our society's structure that the argument
carries little sway.

Although the situation is changing, I have
been convinced that the preference for science over faith is more prevalent in
western culture than many people recognize. One obvious consequence of this
preference is the widespread notion that science and religion are fundamentally
in conflict, to the degree that it is difficult to reconcile how a person can be
both a scientist and a devoted person of faith. Although I find this notion
preposterous, it is somewhat understandable given the behavior of scientists and
religious leaders.

On the one hand, the general public does not understand what
science is, due in large part to the deteriorating state of modern education.
The situation is aggravated by scientists who do not consider the listener when
making scientific statements. That is, the average listener understands
scientists to be sources of objective, absolute facts. He doesn't realize that
when a scientist says that he has "proven something," he is really
saying, "based on this set of assumptions and this set of data, this
explanation is the most probable one offered to date."

On the other hand, we must recognize that
some scientists have behaved poorly. Scientists, too, are human. Too many
scientists have abused their credibility, making stronger claims than are
justified by their data without qualifying them accordingly. They have
presented as fact conclusions which flow from personal biases rather than
from objective data: "expert" witnesses are paid substantially for
scientific testimony which incidentally bolsters the client's case, and
researchers perform "objective" studies which conveniently justify the
social/economic agenda of their political/industrial sponsor. The situation has
so deteriorated in recent years that scientific societies are now publishing
guidelines on ethical scientific behavior and establishing courts to enforce
them. Some universities now include a required course on ethical scientific
behavior in their curriculum. This situation has not gone unnoticed by the
general public, and the credibility of science is lower today than it has been
for decades.

As a result, postmodernism is on the rise.
Increasingly, individuals are looking to nontraditional means to obtain
"truth," such as intuition, mysticism, or psychic
phenomena.2 Sadly, the organized church and
practitioners of science have so violated the public trust that they have lost
credibility, and society is now obsessing on their failures. Traditional
approaches are viewed as inept in the face of persistent problems such as crime,
violence, and disease. Cultural relativism, political correctness, revisionist
history, pathological science,3 and alternative
medicine are clear symptoms of this postmodernist trend. Although the trend may
persist for only a few decades, the long-term consequences of reimagining4
one's faith or reinventing history will be significant. Generations of minds
will be ungrounded in rational thought, and the practice of more reliable
methodologies will diminish. I don't know how long this damaging trend will
persist, but I don't like the view from here.

I personally embrace a paradigm based on Judeo-Christian and
scientific foundations, where both are rooted in analytical reasoning and are
complementary, yet equally reliable means of knowing. This does not mean that I
am not open to new discoveries and ideas; only that I will not assimilate them
until they have passed through the same rigorous analytical filters which I have
found to be the most reliable. In this synthesis, I evaluate new ideas in the
context of history and against the most successful prior paradigms. The rigorous
combination of scientific methodology and Christian ideology is not new. Science
finds its origins in Christianity. Modern science was born in an environment in
which the rigorous pursuit of truth and knowledge was fostered by the church.
Unfortunately, the organized church failed then, and persists in mishandling
scientific results today. However, foolish behavior by churches does not make
Christianity foolish. Likewise, foolish behavior by some scientists does not
invalidate the scientific method.

In my personal paradigm, science and
Christianity are more than just compatible, they are complementary and mutually
supporting. One discipline does not supplant the other, but faith provides the
why and science the how. Albert Einstein also expressed this
conviction, writing, "Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind."5 Because scientific
methodology presupposes a physical explanation for all phenomena, scientists
who deny the existence of God are actually practicing the religious
philosophy of Naturalism. Ironically, it is actually more objective to allow for
the possibility of supernatural phenomena than not. Conversely, persons of faith
who deny empirical conclusions deny that "the universe is full of
logic,"6 and require a "God of the
gaps" mentality to account for God's constant intervention in physical
reality. Thus, when natural explanations are found for events originally
considered "miraculous," superstition is exposed and the need for God
appears diminished.

Combining faith and science in this way
allows each discipline to embellish the other, affecting the other's motivation,
not methodology. Thus, I experience the spiritual joy of wonderment when I
explore a natural phenomenon with scientific eyes, free to explore how
nature behaves, undistracted by why. The wonderment leads to a sense of
humility, which experience has shown is the best way to approach scientific
questions. I am then free both to explore and appreciate nature.
Copernicus expressed this elegantly:

To know the mighty works of God; to comprehend His
wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful working of
His Laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to
the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than
knowledge.7

Admittedly, this paradigm is traditional and conservative. It
is anchored in critical reasoning, objective observation, and 4000 years of
collected history and wisdom. But it is not antiquated. For of what use is a
faith that cannot withstand one's own scrutiny?